3 ms·

The mess we are in today can be avoided if we didn't have the legislative contrivance of a 'debt-ceiling'. [1] If our representatives have voted on appropriatio

The mess we are in today can be avoided if we didn't have the legislative contrivance of a 'debt-ceiling'. [1] If our representatives have voted on appropriations, then that's money that we have already committed to spend. The source of that money should be already debated and taken care of in that measure, so there's no benefit to having a separate check in the form of a debt-ceiling. How does it make sense to vote for appropriations without a way to fund them? All it does is provide for the kind of legislative blackmail that we are seeing today where the funding is not provided unless some unconnected amendments are included. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling#Legislative_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling#Legi...

harshreality 13y ago
If Congress had to agree on a source of funding for every deficit-running budget they passed, the budgets (or continuing resolutions, in the case that they can't pass full budgets) wouldn't pass. The debates over continuing resolutions to fund the government implicitly cover where to get money for the deficits (issuing more debt, obviously). The frequency of debt limit adjustments serves as a reminder to Congress about just how fast they're inflating our currency. Do you really want to do away with that?
- alphakappa 13y ago
  >> If Congress had to agree on a source of funding for every deficit-running budget they passed, the budgets (or continuing resolutions, in the case that they can't pass full budgets) wouldn't pass. It doesn't really make sense to commit to spending without knowing where the money will come from. If they had to argue about the source of funding when they passed appropriations, then we wouldn't have to go through the same drama later.
  - harshreality 13y ago
    They know where the money is coming from: issuing more debt. If they had to acknowledge that more directly when debating the budget (aka continuing resolutions), I don't think budgets would sail through as often as they do, but it would also make it easier for the government to spend more. The ritual of raising the debt ceiling is a more concrete step to make them feel bad about blowing through the last debt increase so fast. What's wrong with that as a psychological tool, and as a separate opportunity for the public to influence their representatives and voice their opinions? You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult.
    - alphakappa 13y ago
      I fail to understand why a dysfunctional system is better than one where expense proposals are matched by revenue/borrowing plans. This is the government of the United States we are talking about, not some teenager's budget where we have to come up with ways to make them 'feel bad' about spending. >> You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult. No, I want to make sure that those who pass spending bills are also responsible for finding the revenue. It does not preclude the possibility of keeping debt in control - if they feel that debt/gdp ratio should be in check, then they should keep their spending proposals in check too. One cannot approve large spending, and then complain when the payment is due.

harshreality 13y ago

If Congress had to agree on a source of funding for every deficit-running budget they passed, the budgets (or continuing resolutions, in the case that they can't pass full budgets) wouldn't pass. The debates over continuing resolutions to fund the government implicitly cover where to get money for the deficits (issuing more debt, obviously). The frequency of debt limit adjustments serves as a reminder to Congress about just how fast they're inflating our currency. Do you really want to do away with that?

alphakappa 13y ago
>> If Congress had to agree on a source of funding for every deficit-running budget they passed, the budgets (or continuing resolutions, in the case that they can't pass full budgets) wouldn't pass. It doesn't really make sense to commit to spending without knowing where the money will come from. If they had to argue about the source of funding when they passed appropriations, then we wouldn't have to go through the same drama later.
- harshreality 13y ago
  They know where the money is coming from: issuing more debt. If they had to acknowledge that more directly when debating the budget (aka continuing resolutions), I don't think budgets would sail through as often as they do, but it would also make it easier for the government to spend more. The ritual of raising the debt ceiling is a more concrete step to make them feel bad about blowing through the last debt increase so fast. What's wrong with that as a psychological tool, and as a separate opportunity for the public to influence their representatives and voice their opinions? You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult.
  - alphakappa 13y ago
    I fail to understand why a dysfunctional system is better than one where expense proposals are matched by revenue/borrowing plans. This is the government of the United States we are talking about, not some teenager's budget where we have to come up with ways to make them 'feel bad' about spending. >> You want to make it easier for the government to increase debt as a percentage of GDP. I'd rather it was more difficult. No, I want to make sure that those who pass spending bills are also responsible for finding the revenue. It does not preclude the possibility of keeping debt in control - if they feel that debt/gdp ratio should be in check, then they should keep their spending proposals in check too. One cannot approve large spending, and then complain when the payment is due.